Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by M2Ys4U on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @01:28PM (#25836795)

> Don't you need permission to advertise your product with Coca Cola™?

Not if what you're selling is Coca Cola

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by rossmohax on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @02:05PM (#25837309)

Genuine question: why Amazon EKS and not Amazon Kubernetes then? I noticed every single managed Kubernetes doesn't call it Kubernetes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by mbreese on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @02:42PM (#25837851)

Huh?

EKS => Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service

Kubernetes is a little different here... it seems a bit more nebulous from an installation/instance point of view. It's a bit like saying we use "Linux". Which Linux? Debian? Ubuntu? RHEL? SUSE?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by ZiiS on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @02:48PM (#25837921)

Because that Trademark is owned by the Linux Foundation who are very well positioned and financed (AWS themselves are Platinum members) and published clear usage instructions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by ecnahc515 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @04:14PM (#25838971)

As someone else said, what constitutes "Kubernetes" isn't well defined, and so the CNCF put limits on using the terminology in product names.

[ Parent | on HN ]